[PATCH] D11612: [lld][ELF2] Apply relocations.

[Rafael Espíndola via llvm-commits]

I am the one doing most of the work on ELF, I am *totally* opposed to
*ever* having a YAML test that can be written in assembly.

If I can understand that entire YAML gunk is:

foo:
.section bar
        call foo

in assembly.


On 13 August 2015 at 23:38, Sean Silva <chisophugis at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
> On Thu, Aug 13, 2015 at 6:03 PM, Rafael Espíndola
> <rafael.espindola at gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> >> llvm-mc
>> > This is testing explicit relocations. Assembly doesn't represent
>> > specific relocations, and it's not obvious what gets generated.
>>
>> This test is using a valid file that can be created with assembly.
>> YAML is an unnecessary LLVM only invention here. Use assembly.
>
>
> The YAML format may be an LLVM-only invention, but R_X86_64_PC32, SHT_RELA,
> etc. are not. Anybody that understands the input format of the linker will
> reasonably understand what is in the YAML file just based on those
> waypoints. The same is not true for assembly (or  rather, "gas directives").
>
> I personally have have a very hard time understanding your assembly test
> cases; I think Michael does too. I think most people would have a hard time
> since they don't really have any "assembly" content; they are basically a
> soup of "gas directives". It's not "assembly" vs. "YAML"; it's "gas
> directives (with whatever LLVM extensions)" vs "YAML". Judging by the
> complete absence of assembly in test/COFF, I assume Rui also prefers
> something tied directly to the object format.
>
> @Rui, as the code owner here, do you think we should stick with YAML for the
> relocation tests?
>
> -- Sean Silva
>
>>
>>
>> Cheers,
>> Rafael
>
>